That's a start, i'm not sure there's a definitive Buddhist answer to that, but...realization is not the same as conceptual "knowing", conceptual/conditioned knowing of things by Buddhist understanding is by definition a kind of limitation..

I guess you could use the two truths to explain that Ultimate Reality cannot be "known" in the conditioned, conceptual sense..in that sense, there really isn't any such thing as knowing ultimate reality, only realization of it.

On the Law Of karma, IIRC there are many references in Sutta/Sutra that it is pretty much unknowable in the samsaric sense, and indeed teachers and friends have explained it to me as something like trying to do math with infinite variables..again, not really conceptually knowable in a satisfying way.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

anything what arises and ceases in your realm of experience is knowable, everything else not.

今以佛眼觀之佛與眾生同住解脫之床。無此無彼無二平等。Now, observing with the eye of the Buddha, both the Buddha and ordinary beings are in the same liberated state. There is neither this nor that: there is only non-duality and identity.
- 空海 Kūkai in Unjigi 吽字義 The Meaning of the Letter Hūṃ
- Kūkai on the Philosophy of Language by Takagi Shingen and Dreitlein Eijō
_______
Śrī Singha said to Padmasambhava:Since buddhas and sentient beings are inseparable and the same, it is necessary to respect all sentient beings as being on the same level with the buddhas. Can you?
- translated by Malcolm N. Smith

rachmiel wrote:Could someone explain -- or provide links to explanations on -- the Buddhist take on what is and what is not knowable (by a human being)?

I'm asking because it seems to me that:

- Seeking to know the knowable is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, for a newbie to seek to know/understand the law of karma.

- Seeking to know the unknowable is a waste of time. For example, for someone to seek to know/understand Ultimate Truth.

I'd like to avoid the second, trying to know the unknowable. But to do that, I need to have a clue what is and what isn't knowable.

Thanks,

rachMiel

"No one really knows anything. (I think.)"

Hello Rachmiel,

It looks for me there is Wisdom in what you write as your signature. Since as long as there is "one", there is no "natural knowing". But at the mean time Buddhism tells us there is not such one, knowing things. Oh but then it is easy! Okay not.

Now I locked myself in own writing, cannot come out of words. I think to understand Buddhism or Wisdom we need impermanent knowledge as very important tool, as navigation system to see our natural knowing, our nature like we all are, all of us.

“ Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek. ”
H H Dalai Lama

rachmiel wrote:Could someone explain -- or provide links to explanations on -- the Buddhist take on what is and what is not knowable (by a human being)?

I'm asking because it seems to me that:

- Seeking to know the knowable is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, for a newbie to seek to know/understand the law of karma.

- Seeking to know the unknowable is a waste of time. For example, for someone to seek to know/understand Ultimate Truth.

I'd like to avoid the second, trying to know the unknowable. But to do that, I need to have a clue what is and what isn't knowable.

Thanks,

rachMiel

If the ultimate nature of reality was unknowable, unrealizable then there would be no enlightenment or wisdom. When one has no knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality, then one is in ignorance. When one realizes first hand the ultimate nature of reality then one is in wisdom.

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

This is very open ended; what is the range of that "etc.?"

The range of that "etc." is relative to the range of your ability to conjecture about the world. I think the point is that when we look at the world from our deluded perception we see the world as a concrete thing that is not dependently arising right here and right now. We view it as a solid external thing and then based on that we try to figure out its origin. We also do the same thing with our sense of self. It is unconjecturable because the basic assumption about how the world and the self exist (as independent self existing entities) is deluded from the start.
So, absolutely any conjecturing we do in regards to the world or self will simply be an outgrowth of that deluded view. That is why some people conclude that a God or something must have created everything.
It is just like the person who mistakes the rope for a snake. Based on that mistaken view anything else he may conceive about that "snake" would be more delusion. He could never find the origin of that "snake" no matter how long he conjectured about it, or how clever he got about it.

But generally trying to know everything is not a good idea. Its enough to know that its possible.

The Great Master from Oddiyana said:
Do not cut to the root of phenomena, cut to the root of your mind.
Cutting to the root of your mind, then knowing that one thing, liberates everything.
Not cutting to the root of your mind, then knowing everything, you missed that one thing.

and

Although hundreds or thousands of explanations are given,
There is only one thing to be understood—
Know the one thing that liberates everything—
Awareness itself, your true nature.
Dudjom Rinpoché

People will know nothing and everything
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

"This is what Wisdom means: To be changed without the slightest effort on your part, to be transformed, believe it or not, merely by waking to the reality that is not words, that lies beyond the reach of words."

"Thought can organize the world so well that you are no longer able to see it."

Anthony de Mello

To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening.

Dogen

All is void, clear, and self-illuminating, with no need to exert the mind.
Here thinking, feeling, knowledge, and imagination are of no value.

What you describe is the first, knowledge through direct sense perception. I was wondering if Buddhism considered the others to be "valid" types of knowing.

"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.